resolved New spotting is great / New spotting is overcooked feedback thread

[Dangerzone]

6 hours ago, Parkour said:

however, we are still unable to turn off spotting dots in VR. 

This is disappointing news.

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, DoorMouse said:

or they need to make black dots which are visible at 2-3 miles.

Exactly what this thread is all about. Have you gone to Gameplay Settings and turned on Improved Spotting Dots?

[Branimir76]

After the update we can finally go back to missions. It is not 100% there, but we can work with this.

[BeerNfrites]

Last update seems good after disabling quad views.

With quad views on at x1.1 dots don’t render with it off they render at about 9nm and don’t appear massive. 
 

Still seems quite a bit away from parity with monitors as a quick test and what I was seeing at 9nm on vr was visible out to at least 15nm on monitor 

Edited October 31, 2024 by BeerNfrites

[draconus]

11 hours ago, DoorMouse said:

They could put aircraft models in, but scale them up slightly, or they need to make black dots which are visible at 2-3 miles.

Scaling models is unrealistic and unacceptable. Dots are not necessary if the rendering is good.

The aircraft can never be a black dot at distance IRL. And not a square or circle either.

[Tippis]

A lot of focus is on the VR dot thread now, and this is more for the pancake solution since that's easier to calculate, but as a reference and illustration for the problem we're having, I made this:

The graph shows three lines: blue is the naive geometric solution for what kind of footprint a head-on F-16 should have (or, more accurately, its bounding box — a fair percentage of that should be empty, but that's a later precision that can be added). The orange line is what is usually the case in DCS, as people scan around at full zoom. The green line is some pseudo-ideal solution of what we probably should be seeing to make the whole thing properly realistic.

Next to the area axis are illustrations of what a dot of that same footprint would look like. Note that about 20 pixels, it has transitioned in this graph from a dot to an actual “model”, with all the fuzziness this entails — in an actual implementation, this transition need to happen much sooner than that, at maybe 6 or 8 px². This all assumes that we've tweaked our setup so that 1px = 0.3 mils, i.e. the smallest thing the naked eye can see.

Ultimately, with the way the aspect should be a lot less visible than the full bounding box would suggest, this graph actually overstates how visible the plane would be, and obviously, you can always “cheat” by sitting too close so as to make the individual pixels more clearly visible. But in a way, this overstatement actually drives the point home further…

What the graph shows is why we can't have dotless solutions: because the 3D model reacts to zoom, and because it actually becomes more visible than the data suggests that the brain (rather than the eye) can handle. Ideally, a plane of this size should be all but invisible at 10nm. The raw 3D model solution would still render as a very visible 2px blob at this point. This means we can now zoom in, and suddenly, that 2px dot grows to a massive 12 pixels. Once seen, it can be fairly trivially be tracked out to 20+ nautical miles.

The unzoomed model suffers a similar problem but in the opposite direction. At ranges where a pilot should be able to track the target and determine its general aspect, the resulting rendering is still too small and dot-like to convey that information. And of course, then there's the issue of what zoom as a function is there to provide: the ability to focus on details in and outside the cockpit, but also give a full wide FoV on the outside world, but also to let you do both at once without any substantial loss of information. It's a player convenience to compensate for how you can't do everything at once on the screen, even when you should be able to.

So a couple of things are needed to make spotting work properly. One is to almost constantly and dynamically counteract zoom. Zooming in should not allow you see further. Zooming out should not make you lose “obvious” contacts. That orange curve needs to be massively flattened on this end, but almost inverted on the bit that falls outside of the top of the graph. There should be a maximum range at which a target of a given size will be rendered at all. Definitely for the orange (zoomed) curve, but as we can see, the same actually applies to the blue “1:1” curve — it, too, needs to be hard clamped much closer in than the trigonometry suggests.

To achieve the green line, we need two facilities: a dot to take over before we even get to 10km so it can be forcibly hidden at a controllable range (and being controllably faded out to that point). A scaling function to counteract zoom as we transition from dot to 3D model, but also to provide the detail we still should be seeing, and which zoom would normally provide, but which needs to be toned down significantly from that extreme.

…and then, of course, all of that needs to be scaled and faded appropriately to match other resolutions and screen distances (i.e. anything from VR to a good old 1080p monitor at arm's distance).

 

19 minutes ago, draconus said:

Scaling models is unrealistic and unacceptable. Dots are not necessary if the rendering is good.

Unfortunately, only through the use of scaling can the rendering be good and realistic. Without it, the model will be both massively too large and far too small depending on the range segment. We can't rely on trigonometry alone to make the full range of spotting sensible.

Edited October 31, 2024 by Tippis

[Joch1955]

Spotting dots much improved with the last patch. In the F14 on the Afghanistan map, Jester was calling out contacts, but they were barely noticeable at 10 miles, just a small greyish dot that was easy to miss. Still a bit too big in the F18 though.

Reverb G2, VR, PD 1, no AA. 

[draconus]

50 minutes ago, Tippis said:

What the graph shows is why we can't have dotless solutions: because the 3D model reacts to zoom, and because it actually becomes more visible than the data suggests that the brain (rather than the eye) can handle. Ideally, a plane of this size should be all but invisible at 10nm. The raw 3D model solution would still render as a very visible 2px blob at this point.

You were already told that unrealistic far view limits can be easily implemented and in spite of having dots we still have very unrealistic spotting ranges so it's not a reason at all for dots or against dotless method. And running after pixels you totally forgot about aerial perspective - what good is a 12px model when it already faded beyond recognition and is as hard to find as 2px? And the zoom itself (dynamic fov actually) can be realistic only in a small range of cases depending on hardware and set up - so it's not possible to cut the unrealistic uses of it either, and since the game allows it, everybody has the same possibility so no advantage can be gained here.

[DoorMouse]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

Scaling models is unrealistic and unacceptable. Dots are not necessary if the rendering is good.

The aircraft can never be a black dot at distance IRL. And not a square or circle either.

It's all going to be unrealistic, and it will be as close as possible to realism if you can mimic the actual capabilities. That unfortunately means things like, making aircraft spotable at realistic distances. If ED wanted to go a step further you would need to deal with geometry, lighting, and contrast. 

 

You can't accomplish realism with straight rendering the model, you need an aid. 

Edited October 31, 2024 by DoorMouse

[draconus]

2 minutes ago, DoorMouse said:

You can't accomplish realism with straight rendering the model, you need an aid.

Like aerial fading, colors and sun glints - yes, we ask for this since years.

[Tippis]

1 minute ago, draconus said:

You were already told that unrealistic far view limits can be easily implemented and in spite of having dots we still have very unrealistic spotting ranges

That's a fault of implementation, not of technique. It's no different than how the old system equally incorrectly let you spot airplanes at 40nm.

The only way to eliminate unrealistic far view limits is to not use pure trigonometry and perspective on the 3D model. Now, you can take your pick on how you want to cap it: do you want it to blink in and out of existence, and hope that no-one ever notice the very obvious pop-in? Do you want to employ a scaling factor to shrink it down to zero size before the model itself actually reaches that state? Do you want to replace it with a dot that can be faded in a controllable manner? Do you want to scale it down to dot-size, and then use the controllability of the dot to take care of the fading?

Those are your options. It's not a question of hiding the 3D model behind visual effects — it's a question of how not to render it at all. If you render it, it can be seen.

7 minutes ago, draconus said:

And running after pixels you totally forgot about aerial perspective - what good is a 12px model when it already faded beyond recognition and is as hard to find as 2px?

The bad thing about that model is that it's not controllable, that it is not equitable, and that it is subject to zoom. And above all, it is the wrong size. Atmospheric attenuation is needed regardless, and will not actually create the limitations that need to be in place for a realistic solution. Having attenuation on top of a corrected size provides a more realistic outcome than applying it to something that is inherently wrong. None of the things you are asking for are left out — they're still as needed, but they need to be applied to a correct base object rather than as an attempt to compensate for incorrectness.

10 minutes ago, draconus said:

And the zoom itself (dynamic fov actually) can be realistic only in a small range of cases depending on hardware and set up - so it's not possible to cut the unrealistic uses of it either, and since the game allows it, everybody has the same possibility so no advantage can be gained here.

That's just it: they don't.

It hits very differently depending on the display system and resolution. It is also entirely possible to cut the unrealistic uses — dots and scaling do that inherently. The best solution is to not convey any advantage to anyone.

[er00ic]

2 hours ago, draconus said:

Scaling models is unrealistic and unacceptable. Dots are not necessary if the rendering is good.

The aircraft can never be a black dot at distance IRL. And not a square or circle either.

No monitor in the world, flat screen or VR, has anywhere near enough pixel density to mimic what can be seen by eye. The options are a dot, scaling distant objects to compensate for resolution limitations, or not being able to see anything.

[PinkCube]

2 hours ago, draconus said:

Scaling models is unrealistic and unacceptable. Dots are not necessary if the rendering is good.

The aircraft can never be a black dot at distance IRL. And not a square or circle either.

Hey big brain, models are limited to the resolution of the monitor. You cannot fit IRL resolution and colour into a monitor.

Edited October 31, 2024 by PinkCube

[Why485]

2 hours ago, draconus said:

Scaling models is unrealistic and unacceptable. Dots are not necessary if the rendering is good.

The aircraft can never be a black dot at distance IRL. And not a square or circle either.

What if instead of dots they drew some kind of appropriately sized plane shaped sprite?

Edited October 31, 2024 by Why485

[SharpeXB]

49 minutes ago, er00ic said:

No monitor in the world, flat screen or VR, has anywhere near enough pixel density to mimic what can be seen by eye.

That’s why there’s a zoom view. That way you scale up everything equally instead of just the targets. It’s less awkward looking.

47 minutes ago, Why485 said:

What if instead of dots they drew some kind of appropriately sized plane shaped sprite?

 

That was already tried and failed. I think you know that…

[Bounti30]

My Feedback

it's always awful.
No more, no less
Back to 2.9.5.55918 again.

 

[SharpeXB]

15 minutes ago, Pillowcat said:

60 ppd for healthy youngsters, easily fit into monitor

I don’t think that figure is relevant. I’m looking at that right now on a large 4K screen (50d FOVx60= 3,0000) and I’m still perceiving pixels with 3840. Even a monitor like this is far short of real life acuity. I think that 60ppd is the threshold for 20/20 vision, not the limit of what the human eye can see.

Edited October 31, 2024 by SharpeXB

[er00ic]

8 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

That’s why there’s a zoom view. That way you scale up everything equally instead of just the targets. It’s less awkward looking.

Zoom only works if you know something is there already. Zooming in and out and seeing an object appear and disappear is not even remotely realistic. At a certain point, you need to accept that you will not get 1:1 parity to real life with a computer game and accept that abstractions are necessary to make the software usable.

Foolishly trying to make everything dotless and at a 1:1 scale just means that an object that would be clearly visible in reality is going to be invisible on your screen. No amount of wishful thinking or complaining that dots don't exist in real life is going to change this.

[Parkour]

I just don't understand why they use a black square for a parachute, a ship, debris from a destroyed aircraft, and an actual aircraft at the same time.

Playing last night I had 4 dots in my view in VR, all of them the same size, ALL of them were the items listed above. I couldn't tell what was what visually. It was just horrible.

If you can't turn off Improved Spotting Dots in VR, at least try to make them actually MATCH the color of the target.

 

 

[Tippis]

50 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I don’t think that figure is relevant. I’m looking at that right now on a large 4K screen (50d FOVx60= 3,0000) and I’m still perceiving pixels with 3840.

It's relevant enough.

The problem you're having is that you maths is horribly incorrect as shown previous. The FoV is wrong, the resolution is wrong, your distance is wrong. The monitor is fully capable of providing accurate acuity — you just don't let it because you've set it up to let you see targets that you're not supposed to see. If you actively do everything you can to circumvent what the game and hardware is capable of, you forfeit any right to suggest that it's not possible.

  

57 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

That’s why there’s a zoom view. That way you scale up everything equally instead of just the targets. It’s less awkward looking.

Wow. Every part of this is wrong. That is almost impressive.

Zoom does not address the limitation he's discussing. In fact, zoom just makes that limitation worse where it exists. But more importantly, if you want to counter his argument you just need to demonstrate that no, actually, monitors are entirely capable of providing that level of detail. In fact, the problem we're having at the moment (and the reason why you're clamouring for the removal of the measure to fix that problem) is that they can show more detail than the eye should be capable of. Zoom isn't even there to solve that problem, but to accommodate for the fact that you as a player are forced into a more restricted FoV than you should have.

Zoom doesn't scale anything up. It alters your field of view and creates awkward foreshortening. You'd know this if you had any clue about the topic at hand and in particular if you had any experience with the VR size of things. Try zooming in there and tell me it's “less awkward”. Even in pancake, that foreshortening is no less awkward than if you were to employ scaling since it will only be applied to targets that are too small for you to even notice how it looks in relation to anything else. The only time zoom should make things larger is when you zoom out, counter-intuitively enough.

 

44 minutes ago, Parkour said:

I just don't understand why they use a black square for a parachute, a ship, debris from a destroyed aircraft, and an actual aircraft at the same time.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is a limitation in how “things” in general are rendered. As in, any active unit gets one treatment, whereas statics and decoration gets another — all of those just happen to count as active in some sense and thus get the full spotting process applied to them.

Edited October 31, 2024 by Tippis

[SharpeXB]

26 minutes ago, er00ic said:

Zoom only works if you know something is there already.

Get in the habit of using a scan pattern at different zoom levels, that’s easy enough.

27 minutes ago, er00ic said:

Zooming in and out and seeing an object appear and disappear is not even remotely realistic

Distant objects have to vanish otherwise you get this inverse zoom effect. A certain amount of that is ok but too much over-enhances distant objects effectively making them gigantic. 

29 minutes ago, er00ic said:

Foolishly trying to make everything dotless and at a 1:1 scale just means that an object that would be clearly visible in reality is going to be invisible on your screen.

Not at all. Look how easily seen these aircraft are. A lot of these views are at a “real world-ish” FOV

 

[Tippis]

5 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Not at all. Look how easily seen these aircraft are. A lot of these views are at a “real world-ish” FOV

[citation needed]

Funnily enough, you're technically correct in that targets can be visible, but for absolutely the wrong reason. You don't even know why this is and what the issue is with your images.

[Koziolek]

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Get in the habit of using a scan pattern at different zoom levels, that’s easy enough.

 

Really? Have you ever tried to look around you with a zoom on IN VR?

[SharpeXB]

10 minutes ago, Koziolek said:

Really? Have you ever tried to look around you with a zoom on IN VR?

Well VR needs a zoom view too for the same reasons. I’m honestly not sure how people use that without getting sick or what that would even look like. 

[Robi Hobby]

Zooming is Cheating. I only fly in VR and never use the zoom function. Real pilots can't zoom with their Eyes either.